Letter to the Editor of the “Ithaca Voice”

After I was swarmed by an Angry Mob earlier this week at a “Justice for Jane Doe” rally in Ithaca, NY, the scant local media on hand did its thing: produce quick hit news-style reports that characterized the events with maximum uncharitability toward me, and maximum ideological deference and/or credulity toward the “organizers.” This is nothing new, of course — I wouldn’t have even paid it much mind here, except that the Ithaca Voice, a local news-oriented type outlet, decided to state as objective fact that I was “removed” from the rally by police, which is emphatically not at all what happened. In fact, it was pretty much the opposite: in their desperation to placate the raving mob, cop after cop was pleading with me to please leave on my own accord, and while I refused at first — on the ground that I did not want to just meekly capitulate to a post-rational mob frenzy — I eventually gave up and agreed, as a courtesy to the begging officers, and voluntarily departed.

But of course that sequence of objectively true events did not comport with whatever weasel-worded little narrative these Ithaca Voice junior journalists wanted to convey. It doesn’t take a genius to infer that they were almost certainly in reflexive ideological affinity with the rally-goers. Which is fine — knock yourself out. But ideally, the practice of journalism calls for impartially relaying the truth of whatever’s transpired, as best one can reasonably discern it, and notwithstanding any ideological “priors” one might be operating with. In this most basic of tasks, journalists Megan Zerez and Fernando Figueroa failed spectacularly.

What really ground my gears was not that they wanted to depict me in a negative light. Lots of people want to depict me in a negative light — cool, whatever, comes with the territory. My problem was that in doing so, they would dress up their barely-disguised hostility in this obnoxiously feigned “tone” of a supposed straight “news” article, when it was really more like a lightly-narrativized activist press release. Excerpt:

The rally was not without confrontation.

The Ithaca Police Department was on hand and removed several people, including political commentator Michael Tracey, who has gained notoriety on social media as a critic of Jane Doe’s civil lawsuit and for his attempts to uncover her identity. At the start of the rally, organizers asked attendees not to interact with “agitators,” naming Tracey as an example.

Wait, what? Unnamed “organizers” openly declared me an “agitator” at some point? I’d actually missed this — I came toward tail-end of the rally, so at least the diligent reporters produced a small tidbit of useful information. (BTW, why weren’t these purported “organizers” quoted by name?) Note that the journalists simply recite the apparent injunction that was made against me, as though it should’ve been assumed prima facie credible — it evidently never occurred to them that instead of just dutifully repeating this strange command, they maybe could’ve spent two seconds evaluating the alleged basis for it. But nope, too much work! So having re-circulated the claim that I’m an up-to-no-good “agitator,” the narrative not-so-subtly followed that I must therefore have been “removed” on totally justifiable grounds. Due to all my, you know, agitation. Even though when the mob first formed, I had literally done nothing except walk around for less than 10 minutes in total silence, observing without incident, and maybe snapped one or two quick photos.

So what I really objected to was the verb “removed,” and how this was sneakily tied in with the laughable designation of me as an “agitator,” who must have posed some grave threat to attendees’ welfare. Or that I was “escorted” off the premises in disrepute by the cops — which would be a weird way to describe “walked away on my own initiative after the cops’ repeated requests that I do so voluntarily.” Or that it was somehow “not clear” who in the world might have “instigated the altercation or whether it became physical.” These oddly un-inquisitive journalists had every opportunity to seek “clarity” from me in real time, or look up my readily-available contact information, and I would’ve been happy to “clear up” any confusion they might’ve had. Instead, of course, they pressed right ahead with their seedy faux-ambiguity, to give readers the strong impression that while the precise sequence of events might not be entirely “clear,” the natural inference is that I must have been going around instigating and agitating and hence, needed to be “removed.”

Here’s my complaint, sent via email, to editor Jimmy Jordan. The journalists were also CC’d, but never bothered answering themselves. Enjoy the entire tedious exchange:

By the end, you’ll notice that it took me vowing to come in-person to their office for Jimmy Jordan to at least finally call me on the phone, which he did yesterday. Prior to this, he’d only agreed to slap on a half-assed non-correction, which had required me to supply the corrective reporting for, by passing along video footage to rectify their lack of clarity as to what could have possibly unfolded. Even though the video footage was widely accessible everywhere on the internet. Among the outstanding issues the footage plainly clarified was whether the “confrontation” I had probably instigated ever “became physical.” Because you can “clearly” see me get whacked on the shoulder by some kind of stick/rod/paddle by some excitable lady. Not that this was any kind of grievous injury or anything, but it’s weird that if the journalists are going to publicly wonder if any “physical” interactions took place, they wouldn’t spend two seconds seeking out the readily available evidence of such.

So after doing their own work for them, they begrudgingly amended the article’s text to the following:

The Ithaca Police Department was on hand and removed several people, including political commentator Michael Tracey, who has gained notoriety on social media as a critic of Jane Doe’s civil lawsuit and for his attempts to uncover her identity. At the start of the rally, organizers asked attendees not to interact with “agitators,” naming Tracey as an example.

Police later escorted Tracey away from an apparent confrontation with some protestors. A video of the event later posted by Tracey shows him surrounded by a small group of police, media and demonstrators as he and rallygoers yelled at each other. One demonstrator called Tracey a “rape apologist.” At one point in the video, it appears as if someone swung an object at Tracey. He said in an email that he was “whacked with a stick or paddle.” He added that he was not “removed,” but “exited voluntarily” after repeated requests from police.

Jimmy Jordan maintained that these revisions were sufficient to address my complaints, even though the article continues to assert, in the publication’s own disembodied voice, that I was “removed” — i.e. forcibly ejected by police, which is just 100% not true. But he apparently didn’t care. So he humored me by giving me a perfunctory phone call yesterday, which lasted 24 minutes. He said he wasn’t going to make any more revisions to the article, and planned to leave up the false information. While advising him that I found this completely pathetic, I nonetheless suggested a compromise: that they at least let me submit some kind of “letter to the editor,” or whatever they would like to call it, in which I would endeavor to provide conclusive “clarity” on the matter. Because maybe this is old-fashioned, but I really would prefer not to have it forever on record, in an ostensibly reputable-seeming local news publication, that I was “removed” by police from a public event, on account of my nefarious “agitation.” Jimmy said he couldn’t make any guarantees, but he would take a look at the letter. Which I then wrote and sent back to him. And I just received his reply: he will not be publishing the letter.

So now I’m compelled to memorialize this whole annoying mini-saga on Substack, partly because yeah, I do find it personally obnoxious, but also because it may offer interested readers a brief little glimpse into what it’s like dealing with these kinds of local media nincompoops, who pretend they’re steadfastly committed to impartially reporting The Facts, but are really just neck-deep in unexamined reality-distorting ideological presuppositions, which they might not even be fully conscious of here, given how baked-in it surely must be that of course the “Ithaca Voice” would be spiritually “on the side” of the trauma-informed survivor Jane Doe rally-goers.

Boring, boring, boring stuff. Bleh. So anyway, for posterity I guess, here’s the letter-to-the-editor I drafted, and which Jimmy Jordan just wrote me back to reject:

---

I wanted to clarify the nature of my attendance at the October 13, 2026 “Justice for Jane Doe” rally held on the Ithaca Commons.

Contrary to how it was characterized in the Ithaca Voice’s subsequent news article, published the same day by Megan Zerez, I was not “removed” from the event by police. Instead, what happened was various police officers continuously pleaded with me to leave the premises on my own volition, in order to mollify the mob that had converged against me, apparently incensed by my very presence — not by anything I had actually said or done at the rally. Indeed, my intent upon arrival was to simply observe, as inconspicuously as possible. I had literally only walked around in silence for less than ten minutes, not speaking to a soul, before the beginnings of the mob formed, and I found myself trailed by one or more individuals who were deliberately seeking to obstruct my movements — as in, they were physically blockading my ability to walk freely about the event. Please do not take my word for it; this is documented on video. Which I only started recording for my own protection — not because I ever felt seriously endangered or threatened (I did not, and do not) but because I didn’t want someone to potentially make a false claim about my conduct, and preferred to have my own independent record of what actually transpired.

In no meaningful sense was I “removed” from the rally. If I ask you to leave some event, and then you voluntarily choose to comply with my request, you have not been “removed.” On the other hand, if I take some coercive action to eject you from the event — by dragging you out under protest, for instance, or perhaps imploring the cops to do so — THEN it would be fair to say I have effectuated your “removal.” And you were thereby “removed” from the event.

Why is this a significant semantic distinction? Because the Ithaca Voice article paints a picture of me as some malevolent outside “agitator” who showed up with foul intent, and was then rightly “removed” as a result of my agitation. Which could not be more demonstrably false. But the article is framed around this premise, as it repeats — totally uncritically — a quote from an unnamed “organizer,” who was apparently heard specifically naming me, Michael Tracey, as one of several potential “agitators” that the crowd should be on the lookout for. At least one rally-goer was also seen waving around a pre-made laminated sheet of paper with my photo on it, to assist the crowd in identifying me, should I appear.

It might have been edifying for Ithaca Voice readers to be apprised that the sole reason any of these rally-goers could’ve conceivably had for designating me an “agitator” is that I recently reported information in the public interest that they did not want to see reported. Yes, it is true that I briefly published the identity of “Jane Doe” from the now-infamous “Cornell 7” lawsuit, after spending several days employing standard journalistic methods to ensure the accuracy of the information. The accuracy has since been confirmed, including by Jane Doe’s own lawyer, as well as CBS News, the New Yorker magazine, and others. So, the truthfulness of what I reported is not in dispute: what’s in dispute is simply whether it should have been reported. The crowd at the rally clearly disagreed with my logic for reporting this information. Which is perfectly fine in a pluralistic society. Indeed, I have proactively sought to engage with all manner of critics, to spell out my rationale for this reporting decision. In short, I regarded it as journalistically imperative to identify Jane Doe, so as to not aid and abet what I regard to be a chronically overused and misused litigation tactic leveraged by profit-seeking plaintiff’s attorneys — in this case Thomas Giuffra, who represents Jane Doe. The tactic is to make sensational, lurid, reputation-destroying claims under the cover of their client’s anonymity, and then funnel those claims out into the media, whereupon the claims get hugely amplified and repeated with excess credulity. This tactic is carried out with an eye toward obtaining maximum settlement payouts, by heaping as much public pressure as possible on the lawyer’s litigation targets. In the meantime, unbridled hysteria is fomented, as journalists and “influencers” do the lawyers’ PR bidding not just by eagerly circulating these claims, but effectively taking them at face value.

I consider this pattern of lawyer-media collusion to be highly corrosive — for basic civil liberties, public sanity, and even public policy. It certainly did not take long for Gov. Kathy Hochul to demand an overhaul of the New York State criminal code based on her own face-value reading of this particular lawyer’s entirely untested and uncorroborated civil complaint, which omitted all manner of potentially exculpatory evidence that has since emerged after the complaint was first filed. Contesting this insidious lawyer-media practice was my overriding motive for the publishing decision — NOT to demean, denigrate, or “doxx” Jane Doe. Indeed, I have only ever DISCOURAGED anyone who follows me from doing anything of the sort. NOTHING I have done, or even suggested doing, is remotely in the realm of anything that could be reasonably called “doxxing” or harassment. I have no ill-will whatsoever toward Jane Doe, and wish her no misfortune. In fact, I communicated these sentiments to her directly before I published my article and accompanying social media post. I have never disseminated any private information of hers beyond her legal name, as a litigant in a massively consequential civil complaint. (I also included her hometown, to establish that it was her, rather than some other potentially same-named person elsewhere in the country.) But that’s it. This is not “doxxing.” It’s called “reporting.”

All that said, if anyone still disagrees with my decision, they are more than entitled to do so. In fact, I welcome it — and I invite them to engage me directly with their critiques, ideally in as reasoned a fashion as possible. But even if they wish to berate or insult me, that’s OK too — all’s fair in the public arena. What crosses a worrisome Constitutional line is the use of physical force. Which is precisely what happened at the October 13 rally. I was whacked with some kind of paddle or stick, had objects shoved in my face, and was impeded in my ability to walk unencumbered in a public space. Please note: I am NOT saying I’m any sort of victim, or that I was seriously physically injured, or anything like that. I wasn’t. I am simply describing what happened, on account of these rally-goers’ rabid disdain for something I had journalistically reported.

This made it all the more regrettable that I would’ve been depicted by the Ithaca Voice as someone who had to be forcibly “removed” by police, because of my supposed “agitation.” I did not agitate, for a single second. Again: I had literally said nothing at all to anyone when the mob started to rapidly converge — all I had tried to do up till then was calmly and inconspicuously observe. But within a matter of minutes, I was surrounded, and had dozens and dozens of people chanting “rapist” at me, hurling every possible epithet, and reporting me to the police as some kind of active threat. The police tacitly enabled this mob behavior by repeatedly requesting that I be the one to leave, when I had not verbally or physically done anything to possibly warrant my ejection. However, I understand the police saw it as their objective to maintain order, which in this case required placating the mob, at least as they saw it. So after initially declining to capitulate to these mob demands, I eventually acceded to the police requests. I was not “removed.” I left entirely on my own volition.

It was disappointing to see this sequence of events presented to the readers of the Ithaca Voice in such a manner that I was portrayed as some wanton, trouble-making instigator, which couldn’t have been farther from the truth. Had anyone at the event wanted to engage me via speech that day, I would have happily obliged — even if their preference was for vituperative or incendiary speech. However, it’s another thing altogether when my movements are physically curtailed, my face is stuffed with posters and other materials, I am struck on the shoulder with an unknown object, and the police choose to inform me that I am somehow responsible for making the rally-goers “uncomfortable” — even though I had literally done nothing that could have even arguably caused anyone the slightest bit of “discomfort.” (And even if I had, theoretically, it would still be extremely Constitutionally dubious to cite vague, non-particularized claims of “discomfort” as grounds for why I, or anyone else, should be expelled from a public political event.) I caused no disruption, disorder, or anything of the sort. At the same time, I was more than willing to “mix it up” (verbally) if that’s what anyone there wished to do. Unfortunately, the police evidently determined that maintaining “order” would be best achieved by persuading me to leave voluntarily. Which I eventually did. I invite anyone to inquire with the Ithaca Police themselves for verification of this.

In sum, I was not “removed” from the “Justice for Jane Doe” rally, and DEFINITELY not on account of any “agitation” I carried out. For the record — just in case anyone might have gotten the wrong idea — I have never considered myself politically right-wing in any way. Not that it should even matter in this circumstance, at least in principle, but feel free to take a look at virtually anything I’ve said or written about Donald Trump in the past several years. That’s ultimately a minor point, though. What I lament most is that Ithaca Voice readers would’ve been given the impression that I showed up that day to “agitate,” and thus had to be “removed” by the cops for reasons of “safety.” That is not what happened.

---